Talk:Nepenthes
Page contents not supported in other languages.
Nepenthes may catch small vertebrates (I have seen them catch frogs), but I very much doubt ferrets form even an occasional part of their diet! I think this is one of those extraordinary claims that requires extraordinary evidence, or at least a reference of some sort...polypompholyx 19:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See: Giant meat-eating plants prefer to eat tree shrew pooBy Matt WalkerEditor, Earth News BBC Wednesday, 10 March 2010 -- wloveral —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.129.128.7 (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is such species as N.viking!!
I'm a little worried about the length of the species list. As it stands, it composes about 2/3 of the article length. People expecting a long read will get three sections down and find that the rest is composed of a single long list and be dissapointed. Here are some options:
Thoughts? --NoahElhardt 05:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone for columns. How does it look now? Mgiganteus1 12:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In "Morphology and function":
The phrase "possibly accidentally" seems to me to imply intent on the part of the plant. I think it would make more sense to talk about whether these plants are able to get some benefit from the trapped vertebrates, rather than speculating on what the plant might have intended to catch. I'm going to remove "possibly accidentally", but if anyone has info on what happens to plants after they ingest vertebrates, feel free to add it in. --Eloil 04:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The work presented thus far on this genus is very good. My first thoughts were that it isn't readily obvious that the plant is in fact, a carnivorous plant (as it is buried in the third or fourth sentence). Do you think that this information should be presented at the very beginning of the dissertation?
My second thought is on the genus's distribution. I feel that the paragraph alluding to Tissue culture and CITES should expand with an explanation on the very limited habitats on a number of species. For example, N aristolchiodes and N clipeata. I am hoping through this, there is a greater appreciation and awareness on the status of endangerment due to specialty habitat loss...as is not so obvious in CITES designations. Flytrap canada 19:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Nepenthaceae had a decent amount of information on classification that was lost when it was merged with Nepenthes. Do you have any plans to integrate it into this article at some point? BTW, I like the new anatomical diagram! Good work. Maybe another diagram showing digestive zones would add to the article? --NoahElhardt 16:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As noted here, giving IPA pronunciations for scientific names can be problematic. If a guide to pronunciation is offered, it should reflect the regional pronunciation where the plant is native. See International Phonetic Alphabet for English for details. IPA pronunciation has been added for all the currently listed species within the genus Nepenthes; for the most part, these are straightforward, but most of those epithets derived from Bahasa Melayu (Malay) or Bahasa Indonesia adhere to the vowel intonation used by native speakers. Attenboroughii 17:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Many of the species within the genus have been categorised as hailing from Oceania; I've been through the species pages and re-categorised a number of these to Asia. While Sulawesi is believed to be in Oceania by some and not by others since it lies east of the Wallace Line, I have not chosen to make this call (indeed, it's probably fair to include species from this region and the island of New Guinea in both). However, we should not labour under the misapprehension that Sumatra, Borneo or Peninsular Malaysia are part of Oceania. The Philippines are contested by some, but only for ethnographic reasons, and in this instance I'd like to suggest that we fall back on the Wallace Line definition and keep the Philippines firmly in Asia, since this is how most individuals regard the archipelago. This way, we have consensus within the genus, at least until any Wiki-wide decision is made. Attenboroughii (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a casual read-through, I thought that this article is well-written and referenced and meets nearly all of the FA criteria. I was wondering if it might be worth a brief collaboration to get it to FA status? I think the main thing missing is a discussion of distribution/habitat and ecology, which would include the infauna (using summary style). Taxonomy/phylogeny is also an easy, short section to produce. Anything else? Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template has some good ideas. Think this is possible? It'd be great to have another FA in the CP project and I think this is the article closest to it among our higher priority articles. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea! :) Over the past year I've been working on a massive expansion of this article myself. The current draft exceeds 350 kb and will no doubt need to be split into around a dozen daughter articles. I've nearly finished expanding the "Morphology and function" section and this can be found in my sandbox (note that it's still not finished and needs to be thoroughly crosschecked!). To give an idea of the scope, here is the contents page from my draft (still needs a lot of shuffling):
1 Etymology
1.1 Vernacular names
2 Botanical history
2.1 Earliest discoveries
2.2 Cantharifera
2.3 Later discoveries
2.4 Scientific research
2.5 Decline and resurgence in interest
3 Morphology and function
3.1 Stem
3.2 Petiole and lamina
3.2.1 General morphology
3.2.2 Leaf base and attachment
3.2.3 Midrib and lamina apex
3.2.4 Venation
3.3 Tendrils
3.4 Pitchers
3.4.1 Dimorphism
3.4.2 Peristome
3.4.3 Lid
3.4.4 Wings
3.4.5 Venation and spur
3.4.6 Inner surface
3.4.7 Size
3.5 Inflorescence
3.5.1 Flowers
3.5.2 Fruits and seeds
3.6 Indumentum
3.7 Roots
4 Anatomy, microstructure, and biochemistry
4.1 Primary stem anatomy
4.2 Wood anatomy
4.3 Leaf anatomy
4.4 Pitcher anatomy
4.4.1 Peristome
4.4.2 Waxy zone
4.4.3 Digestive zone
4.5 Floral anatomy
4.6 Gland structure
4.6.1 Nectaries
4.6.2 Digestive glands
4.7 Pollen
4.8 Cytology
4.9 Biochemistry
5 Growth and development
5.1 Germination and early seedling growth
5.2 Stem and leaf development
5.3 Pitcher development
5.4 Inflorescence development
5.5 Dormancy
5.6 Growth habit and plant architecture
5.6.1 Epiphytes, lithophytes, and terrestrial plants
5.6.2 Apical and lateral growth
5.6.3 Alternative growth strategies
6 Reproductive biology
6.1 Dioecism
6.2 Pollination
6.3 Seed dispersal
6.4 Prevalence of sexes
7 Distribution
7.1 Altitudinal distribution
7.2 Phytogeography
7.3 Distribution patterns
7.4 Endemism
7.5 Sympatry
8 Environmental conditions
8.1 Temperature
8.2 Relative humidity
8.3 Light intensity
8.4 Soil pH and soil conductivity
9 Habitats
9.1 Seashore
9.2 Grassland, savannah, and shrubland
9.3 Tropical lowland rainforest
9.4 Heath forest
9.5 Peat swamp forest
9.5.1 Swamps, lakes, and streams
9.6 Montane forest
9.7 Montane grasslands and shrublands
9.8 Specialised habitats based on substrate
9.8.1 Limestone
9.8.2 Ultramafic substrates
9.8.3 Volcanic substrates
9.8.4 Sandstone
9.8.5 Granite
9.9 Secondary vegetation
10 Carnivory
10.1 Attraction of prey
10.1.1 Nectar
10.1.2 Scent
10.1.3 Colour
10.1.4 Illumination
10.1.5 Accidental attraction
10.1.6 Mimicry
10.2 Trapping and retention of prey
10.2.1 Pitfall traps
10.2.2 Flypaper traps
10.2.3 Lobster-pot traps
10.2.4 Inefficiency
10.3 Digestion of prey
10.3.1 Proteases
10.3.2 Esterases
10.3.3 Sugar hydrolases
10.3.4 Peroxidases
10.3.5 Ions
10.3.6 Free radicals
10.4 Absorption and distribution of nutrients
10.5 Prey spectrum
10.5.1 Vertebrate prey
10.5.2 Prey specialisation
10.6 Loss of carnivory
11 Interactions with organisms
11.1 Pitcher infauna
11.1.1 Food webs
11.1.2 Insects
11.1.3 Arachnids
11.1.4 Crustaceans
11.1.5 Nematodes
11.1.6 Amphibians
11.1.7 Microorganisms
11.1.8 Others
11.2 Mycorrhizal fungi
11.3 Mutualism with ants
11.3.1 N. bicalcarata and C. schmitzi
11.3.2 Other examples
11.4 Destructive relationships
12 Hybridisation
12.1 Natural hybrids
13 Evolution and systematics
13.1 Origin and palaeodistribution
13.1.1 Early hypotheses
13.1.2 Fossil pollen and molecular studies
13.1.3 Species diversity and lineages
13.2 Evolution of the Nepenthes plant
13.3 Recent speciation
13.3.1 Hybrid speciation
13.4 Phylogeny
13.5 Taxonomy
13.5.1 Species
13.5.2 Subspecies, varieties, and forms
14 Conservation
14.1 IUCN Red List
14.2 CITES
14.3 Threats
14.3.1 Habitat destruction
14.3.2 Over-collection
14.3.3 Natural disasters
14.4 Endangered species
15 Uses and folklore
15.1 Local beliefs
15.2 Medicinal uses
15.3 Source of water
15.4 Construction uses
15.5 Cooking rice
15.6 Other uses
15.7 Cultural depictions
16 Cultivation
16.1 Growing media
16.2 Environmental factors
16.3 Growing space
16.3.1 Windowsills
16.3.2 Terrariums
16.3.3 Greenhouses
16.3.4 Outdoors
16.4 Feeding and fertilising
16.5 Propagation
16.5.1 Cuttings
16.5.2 Seeds
16.5.3 Tissue culture
16.6 Manmade hybrids and cultivars
16.7 Botanical gardens
The new "Distribution and habitat" section is a very good start, though I think it would be better to cite specialist Nepenthes monographs in place of Barthlott et al. in most instances. mgiganteus1 (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It says "Some Nepenthes have developed unique, symbiotic relationships with prey, such as N. albomarginata, which almost exclusively traps termites yet produces nearly no nectar. Nepenthes albomarginata gains its name from the ring of white trichomes that are directly beneath the peristome. These trichomes—or "hairs"—are palatable to termites and will attract them to the pitcher. In the course of collecting the edible trichomes, many termites will fall into the pitcher, which is an acceptable loss to the termite colony for the food provided by the plant."
I don't get it: if the amount of food the plant recieves from the termites produces less food in the form of trichomes, than the termites will recieve less food than they lose, and if the amount of food the plant recieves from the termites produces more food in the form of trichomes, than the plant will recieve less food than it loses. This symbiotic relationship doesn't seem to add up: It's like two snakes constantly eating each others tails and growing bigger and bigger. Evrythn1outof8infity (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph on the section on symbiosis seems to be incorrect. It states that the termites and the nepenthes have a symbiotic relationship. This didn't make much sense to me since they're eating each other. This can't really be symbiotic since either one or the other is going to come out ahead in terms of energy. I checked the reference, and it doesn't say anything about a symbiotic relationship, nor does it provide any evidence that the relationship is symbiotic. It appears to be a straight predator-prey relationship. (In a symbiotic relationship of mutual consumption if each participant gets a kind of nutrient which is otherwise unavailable. But that doesn't seem to be the case here). Anyway, I deleted the section, but then decided I was being a bit rash and I reverted. Maybe someone else could double-check my criticism and then make the appropriate changes.128.54.3.210 (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a new story of one bird caught wedged in a pitcher. It is on the bbc website: (link to story) . They do have a photograph. They claim there is precisely one other known case of a bird in one of those pitchers in Germany. Apparently that was in "captivity" too (a cultivar). So the case is not unique. Still, should we wait for a third occurrence, before saying in the article that extremely rarely are able to catch a bird? What do you think? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 10:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nepenthes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Malformed talk page section. Was made when I was new to Wikipedia and I didn't know how to start a proper discussion. I will make a new section below. User3749 (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
The lower pitcher is usually smaller and upper pitchers are larger. I am a nepenthes grower.i have a couple of those already. I noticed that the upper pitchers are larger then the lower pitcher. I did fix the article, but if you have any questions please reply. Thanks User3749 (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
It seems like there were some who keep changing the size of upper pitchers vs. lower pitchers back. A few years back when I was new to this site I would repeatedly change it to generally larger, but many don't agree with this. This is reasonable because some Nepenthes species have lower pitchers that are larger than upper pitchers, but also some Nepenthes species that have upper pitcher larger than lower pitchers. Therefore I believe either wording won't be a general representation.
I am suggesting a new wording that doesn't specifically state whether the uppers are larger or smaller, but just that they are sized differently: "The upper or aerial pitchers are generally sized and colored differently..." that would basically solve this disagreement. Any opinions on this? User3749 (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]